New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (17394 previous messages)

rshow55 - 11:32am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17395 of 17401)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

cantabb - 10:48am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17391 of 17393) is a fascinating post - and exactly backwards. Which is hopeful - just a sign switch, and a lot would sort out. I got a warm and fuzzy feeling ( search topic ) when I read this from cantabb:

lchic - 09:25am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17385 of 17387)

"Showalter has placed emphasis on the need to learn how to negotiate He should know that you can NOT negotiate anything -- much less effectively or well -- with highly ambiguous statements, disjointed thoughts/logic and paranoia-driven speculations and irrationality.

. . .

"And even in ‘the same’ language, if one side is too fuzzy (in thinking, words and logic), extremely unfocused, has unsubstantiated facts and is given to irrationality, you can kiss any hope of negotiation good-bye.

To get to an initial focus where there is a chance for mutual accomodation - where people know enough - highly ambiguous statements, disjointed thoughts/logic - "paranoia-driven speculations" and irrationality are just what you need.

And TYPICAL of real human negotiation when it is successful. You need clarity in the end .

NOT before needs are known, weights are known, and it is possible to "AGREE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE" clearly and in enough detail to have the agreement work.

People who tape record good negotiators at work and actually read the transcripts can't escape knowing that. And they do.

Beautiful, crystal clear negotiations happen after a lot of initial focusing. Disciplined beauty - compactness and fit - happen AFTER people get focused.

bluestar23 - 11:41am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17396 of 17401)

"You weren't even able to say (let alone 'condense') what you've been working on, on MD, and what fraction of what you have often claimed you have achieved..."

You only have today and tommorrow, Mr. Showalter, to explain in plain language the sum of your particular "achievements" on this thread over three years of "effort"....If you choose not to explain yourself in any way to the other posters, and the NYT,in the next 48 hours, this may be taken for an admission that you have in fact "accomplished" Nothing.

bluestar23 - 11:46am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17397 of 17401)

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11122003/business/110180.asp

New airplane-based MD Concept....

bluestar23 - 11:47am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17398 of 17401)

from the above:

By John Hughes Bloomberg News

Northrop Grumman Corp., which equips U.S. military aircraft with missile defenses, said Tuesday that it can put similar technology on 300 commercial jets used to transport troops and supplies within a year if the government approves.

The deployment would cost $810 million if done over a year or $600 million in about 18 months, company Vice President Robert Del Boca said at a Washington news conference. The systems would detect and with a laser deflect shoulder-fired missiles, he said.

Raytheon Co., BAE Systems Plc and Alliant Techsystems, which said it's teaming with UAL Corp.'s United Airlines, are also competing to develop defense systems for civilian planes, company representatives said.

The Department of Homeland Security plans to spend $100 million in the next two years to develop defenses against the threat of terrorists using shoulder-fired missiles to try to down jetliners. There are probably more than 500,000 portable missile launchers worldwide, including some held by 27 nongovernment groups, according to a House aviation subcommittee memo.

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense